[Frost] First data with FROST

[Igor Strakovsky]

Eugene,

I am afraid to say that Ron's and my opinions are less different than
one might think.  First of all, our group (everybody knows that Dick
was a leader) did a lot of different things.  You can find that not
all of them are accessible. The SAID secure-shell has results when
Dick was comfortable with them.  So, both KL20 and KS20 are the cases.
We did not publish both KL and KS because we met a problem to determine 
resonance parameters.  We trying to minimize a theoretical contribution
and did not find a good way to do that for KL and KS.  Personally, I
have no problem if somebody will use both KL20 and KS20 as an event
generator for MC or to compare predictions with new measurements

Igor



On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 22:29:50 -0400, Eugene Pasyuk <pasyuk at jlab.org> wrote:

> Igor,
> 
> Here is what Ron said to me. Could you comment on this?
> 
> "I often see people quoting the SAID kaon
> photoproduction analysis. We have nothing
> on our website. (The solution there is from
> Bennhold and Mart). There is a result of
> some games Dick played with the data
> on the ssh site - it has never been published
> and never will be. It is not meant for distribution
> so I wonder why this keeps showing up?"
> 
> -Eugene
> 
> Igor Strakovsky wrote, On 06/03/11 22:04:
>> Franz,
>>
>> How you know so much about SAID?  Who teach you?  Yes, both KL20 for
>> gp-->KLambda and KS20 for gp-->KSigma are done back to 2004.  Anyway,
>> all recent published measurements which SAID database has shown that
>> most of new data are good for both KL20 and KS20, sure within KL20
>> and KS20 validity which is 2 GeV.
>>
>> Unfortunately, E429 has no relationship with gp-->KL&  KS.  That is
>> previous solution for gp-->etaP.  The recent solution, GE09 has been
>> published recently at
>>
>> Study of the $\gamma p ->  \eta p$ reaction with the Crystal Ball
>> detector at the Mainz Microtron(MAMI-C).
>> By Crystal Ball Collaboration at MAMI (E.F. McNicoll et al.).
>> Jul 2010. (Published Sep 2010). 14pp.
>> Published in Phys.Rev.C82:035208,2010.
>> e-Print: arXiv:1007.0777 [nucl-ex]
>>
>> GE09 fitted all published data below 2.9 GeV.
>>
>> Mike, please give me 2 hr to look your slides over
>>
>> Igor
>>
>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 20:33:58 -0400 (EDT), Franz Klein<fklein at jlab.org> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> the draft looks really good.
>>> Please put a clear 'preliminary' sign over the eta, pi+n, K+Lambda
>>> (Sigma,G) data.
>>>
>>> The K+Lambda and K+Sigma0 solutions from SAID are KL20 and KS20 from 2004
>>> (cf. PRKS104), including g1c (J.McNabb) and SAPHIR data (Bockhorst, Tran,
>>> Glander). I agree the solution does not the newer data, in particular
>>> no g11a (DSG,P) nor g1c-double pol.(Cx,Cz) but is based on roughly the
>>> same database as the E429 (cf. EP074) solution for eta production.
>>> Furthermore, you are running into the same problem with MAID (etaMAID and
>>> kaonMAID - besides, the said webpage has only the Mart-Bennhold pole 'fit'
>>> = kaonMAID)
>>>
>>> Thanks for giving the FROST talk,
>>>
>>> Franz
>>>
>>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Michael Dugger wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have the most recent version of the User Meeting talk:
>>>> PowerPoint ->  http://www.jlab.org/~dugger/g9/g9a/userMeetingDuggerV2c.ppt
>>>> pdf ->  http://www.jlab.org/~dugger/g9/g9a/userMeetingDuggerV2c.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Please make sure that I spell your name correctly, and that you are OK
>>>> with how your data is presented.
>>>>
>>>> NOTE: We still need to figure out how to refer to the K+ Lambda and K+
>>>> Sigma0 curves that are currently defined as being SAID.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your time.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Michael